5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_Bret Ripley]

for what it's worth: In his letter to the Galatians (almost certainly Pauline) Paul claims to have been familiar with Peter. It is not a firsthand account of Jesus, of course, but perhaps it isn't terribly distant either.

Bonus for what it's worth: Paul also seems to be familiar with some Q material, which may be worth bearing in mind when you see the relative lateness of the Gospels trotted out as an argument against a historical Jesus. As to the question of whether there was a historical Jesus (per se) this isn't a big deal -- obviously there was a 'Jesus tradition' before Paul. But Paul's apparent familiarity with Q does support the notion that at least some Gospel source material pre-dates Paul.

[_SteelHead]

for what it's worth: In his letter to the Galatians (almost certainly Pauline) Paul claims to have been familiar with Peter. It is not a firsthand account of Jesus, of course, but perhaps it isn't terribly distant either.

Bonus for what it's worth: Paul also seems to be familiar with some Q material, which may be worth bearing in mind when you see the relative lateness of the Gospels trotted out as an argument against a historical Jesus. As to the question of whether there was a historical Jesus (per se) this isn't a big deal -- obviously there was a 'Jesus tradition' before Paul. But Paul's apparent familiarity with Q does support the notion that at least some Gospel source material pre-dates Paul.

Which doesn't lend any weight to a historical Jesus, nor preclude Paul from being an opportunist injecting himself into the leadership of a movement that he had some familiarity with.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here is the second issue from the link supplied in the OP. In my view, the "point" is worded in a such a way as to be manipulative, but I guess that the point is to persuade the reader.

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

Talks about the "earliest New Testament writers" and then, it only discusses Paul. Funny how that works. Was Paul ignorant about the details of Jesus' life or do his writings have a different purpose? Are Paul's efforts to detail historical matter or is he interested in transformation and extending the theology to the Gentiles?

Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles.

Again, what is Paul's emphasis? I say it's on giving his account of his own spiritual transformation, planting churches, fleshing out the theology and extending the religion to the Gentiles, providing encouragement to new churches and criticisms...watch out for that catalogue of vices and virtues, and those poor pagans that he virtually torched at every opportunity!

Paul's writings demonstrate an attempt to move the religion forward. Why should he go back in time to give account that which was already thought to be known?

Historians have long puzzled over the “Silence of Paul” on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus.

Conveniently doesn't mention just who these historians are.

Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case.

Paul never refers to Jesus in terms of the risen Christ or Lord? Not sure what they're looking for as evidence of Jesus authority in the writings of Paul.

What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings.

Why should he refer to them as disciples when the twelve were known to be disciples? He's growing the religion, he's not recording it's history.

He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t just vague, but contradict the gospels.

He refuses? So does that mean that the people who wrote about the Kennedy Assassination refused to include the biography of JFK? Does anyone see how manipulatively this is worded or is it just me?

Again, is Paul'sl interest in past events or is his emphasis on the future of the church?

The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

No scriptural cites for this. I should like to know what the writer is referring to here. Granted that Paul does, well, he boasts about his hardships, but I don't recall him claiming that Peter or James weren't true Christians. I just don't remember that.

I guess my main question is who was Paul? Was he a historian or was he a church planter?

I say he was a church planter.

[_Jersey Girl]

I think it was Kish (the god of mythical Jesus knowledge), in the monster thread Jersey Girl's pleadings led me to, that noted Saul was writing to an audience that already knew of Jesus, thus he spent no time on history which was already commonly known.

If I could climb on top of Jersey Girl's shoulders as she stands on the top of Kish's shoulders, my head would likely pop through the veil!

brown nosing for final report

What does that mean???? I hope something good, because I'm a little tired/bored with people throwing crap at me for recommending guys on this forum who know this stuff better than most anyone else I've ever seen post here.

Like the world ended or something.

[_Jersey Girl]

for what it's worth: In his letter to the Galatians (almost certainly Pauline) Paul claims to have been familiar with Peter. It is not a firsthand account of Jesus, of course, but perhaps it isn't terribly distant either.

Bonus for what it's worth: Paul also seems to be familiar with some Q material, which may be worth bearing in mind when you see the relative lateness of the Gospels trotted out as an argument against a historical Jesus. As to the question of whether there was a historical Jesus (per se) this isn't a big deal -- obviously there was a 'Jesus tradition' before Paul. But Paul's apparent familiarity with Q does support the notion that at least some Gospel source material pre-dates Paul.

Can you say what you see in Paul's writings that make you think he's familiar with Q? Honestly, it's been forever since I've even thought about any of this.

Q is theory only, isn't it?

[_Aristotle Smith]

Are there any contemporary Jewish sources who wrote about Jesus? Seems to me that is where one might find some mention of him.

Sorry, but the "it seems to me" assertion is not an argument.

As I point out earlier, Philo of Alexandria was an absurdly important Jew living in the 1st century AD. He is mentioned by Josephus and never by any pagan sources. No one doubts his existence.

Here's another fun one. Honi the Circle Drawer was a miracle working Jew living in the 1st century BC. He is mentioned by no contemporaneous Jewish or pagan sources and by one Jewish source a century later (Josephus). As far as I know, nobody doubts the existence of Honi.

To belabor the point, this shows that we can expect famous Jews to get on average 1 reference in a Jewish author within a century of their deaths and zero in pagan authors.

I will also point out, Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew living in the 1st century. He is mentioned by Josephus and twice by pagan sources. We have what we would expect given the sources.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Does Paul's reference to Jesus in 1st Corinthians count as a 1st century reference? Why or why not? Perhaps what I'm asking is- do we presume 1st Corinthians is a first century source?

Yes, it is a first century source, and a rather good one I might add.

[_Jersey Girl]

Aristotle Smith,

If you are interested in correcting any of my on-topic comments, please do so. I welcome it.

[_Bret Ripley]

for what it's worth: In his letter to the Galatians (almost certainly Pauline) Paul claims to have been familiar with Peter. It is not a firsthand account of Jesus, of course, but perhaps it isn't terribly distant either.

Bonus for what it's worth: Paul also seems to be familiar with some Q material, which may be worth bearing in mind when you see the relative lateness of the Gospels trotted out as an argument against a historical Jesus. As to the question of whether there was a historical Jesus (per se) this isn't a big deal -- obviously there was a 'Jesus tradition' before Paul. But Paul's apparent familiarity with Q does support the notion that at least some Gospel source material pre-dates Paul.

Can you say what you see in Paul's writings that make you think he's familiar with Q?

Not off the top of my head (sorry!), but I'll do a little digging and get back to you. It'll probably have to be tomorrow, though.

Q is theory only, isn't it?

Yes, just like evolution, gravity, and a historical Jesus. ;)

[_Jersey Girl]

Bret,

Don't go out of your way. If you feel like it, then okay.